The principle of non-refoulement – a principle of international law in the Refugee Convention, the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, and several other treaties – prohibits States from transferring or removing refugees and asylum seekers from their jurisdiction when there are “substantial grounds for believing that the person may be at risk of irreparable harm upon return [to their home countries], including persecution, torture, ill treatment or other serious human rights violations”. Soon after the fall of the Assad regime in December 2024, several States announced that they would temporarily stop processing asylum applications from Syrians, while politicians in other States – including Austria, Denmark and Germany – announced that they would explore plans to begin deporting Syrians back to Syria. However, there is very little information to suggest that Syria is safe to return to, and under the principle of non-refoulement, States cannot deport Syrians unless they have carried out individualised risk assessments to determine that each individual within their jurisdiction will not be subject to irreparable harm upon their return.

Various non-state armed groups, including Hay’et Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and factions of the Syrian National Army (SNA), who initiated the offensive that overthrew the Syrian government, have carried out human rights abuses and war crimes in Syria. In an interview on 13 January 2025, the UN Special Envoy for Syria, Geir O. Pederson, acknowledged that despite the relative stability in many parts of the country after the takeover of these groups, there had been incidents of extrajudicial and revenge killings, as well as attacks on minority groups. These attacks have intensified in recent weeks.

This highlights how the decision for States to return Syrian asylum seekers and refugees to Syria is built on the assumption that the Assad regime was the sole driver of Syrians seeking asylum. As Obai Kurd Ali and Mai El-Sadany wrote, this assumption “contributes to an erasure of victims of non-regime groups”, those who fled hostilities, and members of marginalized groups such as religious minorities or members of the LGBTQ+ community. A collective decision like this puts asylum applicants whose applications were motivated by factors outside of the Assad regime at risk of being subjected to the very persecution that they fled from.

This is why the Refugee Convention requires States to conduct individualized assessments to determine whether an individual can be recognized as a refugee. Furthermore, it is why the ICCPR requires States to conduct individualized assessments to determine whether an individual expelled or transferred from its territory may experience treatment that would violate its non-refoulement obligations. A State may recognize refugee status on the basis of “readily apparent, objective circumstances in a country of origin”, such as persecution or generalized violence, as opposed to an individual’s specific circumstances. However, it cannot reject refugee status in the same manner or collectively expel individuals.

The Importance of Conducting Individualised Risk Assessments for Syrians

The UN’s Human Rights Committee (HRC) is tasked with monitoring State compliance with the ICCPR and has the authority to examine complaints regarding alleged violations of the ICCPR. In Abdilafir Abubakar Ali and Mayul Ali Mohamad v. Denmark, the HRC clarified that States must undertake individualised assessments of the risk an individual may face if they are removed to another country as part of their obligations under the principle of non-refoulement.

Syria’s newly appointed President, Ahmed al-Sharaa, has expressed that his government will uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms for all Syrians. However, as the European Court of Human Rights established in MSS v. Belgium and Greece, diplomatic assurances, the existence of domestic laws, or even accession to international human rights treaties are not in themselves sufficient to ensure adequate protection against the risk of ill-treatment.

Thus, States cannot deport Syrians back to Syria until there is enough information available to assess the current situation in Syria, and until States carry out individualized risk assessments to determine whether those refugees and asylum seekers which States are planning to return are not at risk of suffering irreparable harm.